The ordination of women: Biblical perspectives

God’s good creation: Genesis 1–3

When used as part of the Christian Bible, the two creation stories in Genesis have proven to be a rich source for the church’s understanding of male and female, and the authority each carries in relation to the other. Some Christians have argued that either by virtue of creation or because of the fall, the creation stories teach us that women are to be subject to men and cannot assume offices of leadership in the church, most especially that of ordained pastor or priest. Others believe that the creation stories depict as normative the equal partnership of men and women—equal not only in value, but also in authority. ⁵ A number of important theological themes arise from the church’s reading of the creation stories that, in turn, inform one’s understanding of whether women are subordinate to men. Issues to be addressed here are: whether both men and women were created equally in the image of God, whether Adam has authority over Eve who was created as his helper and whom he named, whether Eve is responsible for humanity’s fall into sin, and whether Eve’s punishment along with Adam’s can be transformed by the power of salvation.

The Samaritan woman (John 4:4–30, 39–42)

The story that has often been called “the woman at the well” in John presents Jesus breaking several cultural expectations. Returning to Jerusalem, he chose to go through Samaria instead of taking the longer route around the territory of Israel’s enemies, the Samaritans. Furthermore, he spoke in public to a woman whom he did not know and, worse, he spoke in public to a Samaritan woman, something forbidden by Jewish law. When he asked the woman for a sip of water from her jar, he crossed another cultural boundary, because Jews and Samaritans did not share utensils for eating and drinking. As Jesus engaged the woman at the well in conversation, he treated her with respect.

But what Jesus did in relation to this woman, church tradition has not been able to do. Few figures in the Bible have been as unfairly maligned as the Samaritan woman. Christians have pointed their finger at her in judgment and derision. According to tradition, she was an adulteress, who had casually run through five husbands and now sinfully lived with a man to whom she was not married. The church has also accused her of becoming evasive when Jesus mentioned her marital status by changing the subject, talking about the ways Jews and Samaritans worship. And tradition claims, “she just didn’t get it.” Jesus was talking about salvation, while she kept referring to the kind of water that quenches physical thirst. So the church has made fun of her.

But these accusations against the woman at the well are not borne out by the text itself or the culture in which the story takes place. The woman could not, in fact, have “run through” five husbands, because she had no power to divorce them. They, however, had the power to abandon and divorce her. She could have been divorced by five different husbands, or it is possible she was widowed five times, in which case the brother of each husband was obligated to marry her. Perhaps there were no brothers left. It is also possible that the man she now lived with consented to take care of her, but refused to marry her. Significantly, whatever the reason behind her marital history, which has brought the church’s judgment upon her, that history does not concern Jesus at all. ¹³

Also, the text does not suggest that she was trying to evade Jesus’ statements. When Jesus tells her of her personal life, she believes he is a prophet and asks him serious questions about worshiping God. It is not true that “she just doesn’t get it” when she keeps talking about quenching literal thirst, while Jesus is talking about salvation. After all, Jesus began the conversation by asking for a real drink of water: “Jesus said to her, ‘Give me a drink’” (John 4:7). His words about living water are confusing or at least initially elusive, even to some contemporary readers of the text.

Rather than ridicule and criticize the Samaritan woman, we need to acknowledge that the text does not present her as an adulteress. We could even anachronistically say she was a theologian, because she engaged Jesus in serious theological matters. Furthermore, many Samaritans believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony. But the church has wanted to keep her in her place, to accuse her of sins she did not commit, and to make fun of her supposed lack of understanding. This text does not directly speak to the authority of men and women. It does, however, present a story of a woman who fits the pattern of a disciple, moving from viewing Jesus with suspicion, to believing that Jesus was a prophet, to recognizing him as the messiah. Could it be that tradition has overlooked the positive transformation of this woman, as well as maligned her for sins her culture would not have allowed her to commit, simply because she was a woman?

Mary (Luke 1:26–38)

Mary the mother of Jesus, who is revered by Roman Catholics and, unfortunately, ignored by Protestants except at Christmas and sometimes Easter, is often described by Catholics and Protestants as the ideal woman of faith. Her immediate submission to Gabriel’s claim that she has been chosen by God has been used to present the perfect image of a woman submitting to God’s will. Also, her virginity has been extolled to such an extent that church tradition has sometimes presented her as a “perpetual virgin,” presumably because sexual intimacy and perfection in faith are at odds with one another. While an ideal is by definition impossible to reach, the fact is, as both virgin and mother, Mary becomes the quintessential impossible ideal for women to follow. ¹⁴

When, however, one reads this text in light of other call stories in the Bible, Mary’s words to Gabriel, “I am willing to be used of the Lord. Let it happen to me as you have said” (Luke 1:37), are not unusually submissive. Rather, Luke’s description of Mary’s encounter with the angel offers a call story like others we find in Scripture. While some who are called by God give reluctant responses, such as Moses who begs, “Please send someone else” (Exod 4:13), others respond with an immediate acceptance, such as Samuel who says, “Speak, for your servant is listening” (1 Sam 3:10), or the disciples who immediately set down their nets and followed Jesus (Matt 4:20). Why is Mary considered any more submissive than Samuel or the disciples?

As for being the ideal woman, the most significant aspect of Mary’s virginity has tended be ignored. As Christopher Morse has argued, we have reduced the virgin birth to a gynecological matter, overlooking the most significant aspect of the biblical story. First, we move too quickly from the creedal claim that Jesus was born, which is an anti-Docetic affirmation. ¹⁵ Furthermore, Mary’s virginity affirms that no patriarchal power contributed to the conception of the Savior. Morse points out that Sojourner Truth was keenly aware of the significance of Mary’s virginity when, in response to a male clergyman who said women cannot have equal rights with men because Christ was a man rather than a woman, she replied, “Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman. Man had nothing to do with him.” ¹⁶ As Morse argues, the affirmation that “Jesus Christ ‘was conceived by the Holy Spirit,’ entails the refusal to believe that male prowess, sexual or otherwise, is the source and cause of salvation.” ¹⁷ Male dominance is challenged by the virgin birth. Regarding the issue of women’s authority in relation to men’s, one needs to question why the church has tended to describe Mary as submissive and insisted that she is a model of faith for women. Male figures in the Bible are also described as submissive as both men and women are called to submit themselves to God’s Word.

Junia: Outstanding among the apostles (Rom 16:7)

In Romans 16:7, Paul identifies Andronicus and Junia (a man and woman) as “outstanding among the apostles.” For seven centuries, the Greek used in biblical manuscripts didn’t use accents, but when they did become common practice, Junia was, without exception, identified as a female name. ¹⁸ All patristic writers understood Junia to refer to a woman. Theologians as diverse as Origen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, and Peter Abelard assumed as a matter of course that the partner of Andronicus, whom Paul identifies as an outstanding apostle, is a woman named Junia. In the 4th century John Chrysostom wrote that being “an apostle is something great.” But, he adds, “how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” ¹⁹

According to Bernadette Brooten, “no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245–1316) took the name to be masculine,” because the notion that a woman could be described as an apostle became too much to bear, and the female name “Junia” was translated into a masculine form, Junias. As Brooten argues, “Because a woman could not have been an apostle, the woman who is here called apostle could not have been a woman.” ²⁰ Never mind that while the female name “Junia” occurs over 250 times in sources outside the Bible, the supposed male version of the name, Junias, cannot be found anywhere. There is undeniably a certain subjectivity involved in all efforts at translation. But here the assumption that women could not—and should not—assume leadership roles in biblical times or now, led to a completely unjustified change in the well-established female apostle, Junia, to a make-believe male character, Junias.

Women shall keep silent (1 Tim 2:11ff.)

Another example of biased translations working to the detriment of women is found in this highly problematic text: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission.” The Greek word, hesuchia, which is translated as “silence,” should more accurately be translated as “to settle down or stop agitating.” Interestingly, the word is given such a translation when used in reference to the church (1 Tim 2:2 is translated “live peaceful and quiet lives”) and when used to refer to men (2 Thess 3:12 is translated, “settle down and earn the bread they eat”). Only when the Bible uses hesuchia to refer to women do the translators render it as “silence.” Hence, in reference to women, 1 Tim 2:11 is translated, “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness” instead of “Let a woman settle down and submit to instruction.” ²¹

Thomas Oden, a highly respected theologian, who has had little patience with feminist theology, says he approached this text with dread. Not only did he discover the word does not say “silence,” he finds positive affirmations for what the text means for women without relegating them to a submissive, voiceless presence in church today. “Long before the English translators rendered this flatly ‘silence,’” Oden writes, “John Chrysostom understood clearly that ‘he is speaking of quietness’… a particular virtue.” ²² He also points out that the same posture in public worship that is here expected of women is elsewhere expected of men as in, for instance, Acts 22:1, 1 Thess 4:11, and Titus 2:2. Other aspects of 1 Timothy’s advice to women can be given plausible contextual explanations, while the exclusive translation of hesuchia as silence for women demonstrates a more recent cultural bias against women. Oden concludes his insightful reflections by insisting, “there is no warrant here for relegating women to subordinate or dehumanizing social roles.” ²³

Conclusion: Mary’s daughters

Both Old and New Testaments describe a number of women as having assumed leadership roles. While Deborah is the only female judge mentioned in Scripture, indicating that judges were almost always men, Judges does, nevertheless, indicate that a woman could be a judge (Judges 4 and 5). Jesus says Mary chose “the better portion” when she sat with the disciples to listen to Jesus rather than join Martha who worked in the kitchen (Luke 10:38–42). Paul not only refers to a woman apostle when he praises Junia, he mentions other women who were in leadership roles. Phoebe is referred to as a deacon and a benefactor (Rom 16:1–2), Prisca and her husband Aquila worked with Paul and together “explained the way of the Lord” to Apollos (Acts 18:26), and as mentioned above, the Easter story says women were the first witnesses at the tomb, and they believed, while men, who heard their account, did not believe. Some think it strange that their male descendants merit consideration for the ordained ministry, while women—just by virtue of being women—do not.

Finally, Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the only biblical figure who was present at both the birth and the death of Jesus. In a poem titled “Did the Woman Say?” Frances Croake Frank wonders if Mary cried, “this is my body, this my blood,” as she held her newborn son and then again when she held her dead son’s body. ²⁴ The poet concludes, “Well that she said it to him then, / For dry old men, / Brocaded robes belying barrenness, / Ordain that she not say it for him now.” Why, if Eve was made equally in the image of God, if all humanity are equally sinful and in need of salvation, and if salvation transforms the structures of sin, are women refused ordination today? Why, if women were the first to witness the resurrection and to believe, while men were the first to doubt, are women deemed ill-equipped just by virtue of their sex, to preside at the communion table? And why, if the only character in the Bible who witnessed both the birth and the death of Jesus was none other than a woman, Mary, are none of Mary’s daughters given leave to witness to him now in the same way men can be ordained to do?